On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 11:39 +0100, Radek Vykydal wrote:
>
> Doug Ledford wrote:
> > The upgrade from mdadm 2.6.7.1 to mdadm 3.0 is not an entirely automated
> > process. The mdadm 3.0 package includes new naming rules on md devices
> > (specifically, only md? and md_d? devices are allowed in /dev, all
> > non-standard named md devices must be moved to /dev/md/). In addition,
> > I used upstream's udev rules file. It has been revamped to support some
> > of the new features of mdadm 3.0 and is different from our previous udev
> > rules file.
> >
> The udev rules file for md devices is in udev package:
>
> [root@dhcp92 module]# diff /etc/udev/rules.d/64-md-raid.rules
> /lib/udev/rules.d/64-md-raid.rules
> 14c14,15
> < ATTR{md/array_state}=="|clear|inactive", GOTO="md_end"
> ---
> > ATTR{md/array_state}=="clear|inactive", GOTO="md_end"
> > ATTR{md/array_state}!="?*", GOTO="md_end"
> 18c19
> < ENV{DEVTYPE}=="disk", ENV{MD_NAME}=="?*",
> SYMLINK+="disk/by-id/md-name-$env{MD_NAME}"
> ---
> > ENV{DEVTYPE}=="disk", ENV{MD_NAME}=="?*",
> SYMLINK+="disk/by-id/md-name-$env{MD_NAME}",
> OPTIONS+="string_escape=replace"
> 21c22
> < ENV{DEVTYPE}=="partition", ENV{MD_NAME}=="?*",
> SYMLINK+="disk/by-id/md-name-$env{MD_NAME}-part%n"
> ---
> > ENV{DEVTYPE}=="partition", ENV{MD_NAME}=="?*",
> SYMLINK+="disk/by-id/md-name-$env{MD_NAME}-part%n",
> OPTIONS+="string_escape=replace"
>
> where it contains also recently added patch to handle remove event added
> to md layer (the first hunk).
> (http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.hotplug.devel/13666)
> Isn't udev package the right place for the rules file (and the
> other two hunks change)?
In the past, the udev maintainer has told me that the reason for
creating the rules.d directory was specifically to get various packages
to maintain their own rules as opposed to them all being in the udev
package. From that standpoint, it belongs in mdadm.
> I also noticed that 70-mdadm.rules for linux raid member devices
> (automatic incremental assembly with mdadm) were removed from mdadm package.
> Why?
The original 70-mdadm.rules file was a home grown rules file with no
relationship to upstream. Upstream now has a reasonable udev rules
file. We are attempting to use it to remain closer to upstream. If it
turns out that upstream's rules file doesn't do all we need, we can add
it back in. But, as much as possible, I want to keep with upstream on
this.
--
Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx>
GPG KeyID: CFBFF194
http://people.redhat.com/dledford
Infiniband specific RPMs available at
http://people.redhat.com/dledford/Infiniband
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
